Hey /tg/ how much does Games Workshop actually have copyright

>>51040440

Dat ass

>>51040440
The rules themselves, no.

Specific phrasings or explanations, possibly.

>>51040807
Didn't they try and copyright the term "Space Marine" at some point?

>>51040884
Yep, and they failed. Courtesy of the thirties, I think.

File: 1452361882232.png (199KB, 680x499px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 680x499px

>>51040807
Are you serious? They have no copyright over their rules? Who did they plagiarize them off of?

>>51040884
>>51041203
They've still got the Copyright of the word "space marine" and they occasionally have to throw their weight around because of it, but it's basically unenforceable. It's just a game of who wants to spend the court fees opposing them first.

File: gc39.jpg (177KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 640x427px

This thread seems to cover the general issue of rules copyright. But if I say tried to use 2nd Ed rules for a game and market it what recourse would GW have? As long as I didn't use their rules text.

File: hqdefault.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>51042510
sorry forgot to post it.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/493249/mythbusting-game-design-and-copyright-trademarks-a

File: 1450421216599.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

So in the end Space Goblins, Star Fey, Void Troopers, Hive Swarms, Imperial Legions, Orcoids, Rune Folk, Mau Collectives, and Necro-droids are all fair game?

>>51042765
Yes. See the many companies who make totally not 40K figures.

>>51042765
>Mau Collectives
I'm imagining tau as if they were loosely based on oceanic cultures for some reason.

>>51041573
You cannot copyright ideas, just specific executions.
You can't copyright the rules of a game or code of a progrem conceptually, just how you wrote them out.

Fucking hell, doesn't anybody do any research anymore.

>>51042510
None, as long as you phrase out the game yourself and make no allusions to 40k.
But guess the fuck what? They can STILL send you a C&D and try to drag your ass to court over basically nothing. There's a decent chance it won't get thrown out immediately because most judges don't really give a shit about games and only work the case half-heartedly. You'll still probably win, but only if you stick it out and good fucking luck on that, because GW can draw it out for years and years and bleed you dry through sheer force alone.
So if you intend to sell this, you better not give them any legs whatsoever to stand on or they can grind your ass dry on this shitty convoluted mess we call "legal systems". And god help you if you are American.

File: _45298115_1.jpg (30KB, 466x260px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 466x260px

>>51043567
I hear you, but I have fought court cases before and if you can hold out (ie. just show up to court every couple of months) some times you can wear them out. It can be easy to drag a case out for over a year even before you get a lawyer and after you get a lawyer it can take another year and a half just to get started. That is over 2 1/2 years just to bring a case to court, the whole time you are continuing to operate your enterprise.

With someone like GW the PR might even help out your brand. Not to mention everyone would be rooting for you in the gaming community.

Hell I love it when you can mix business and activism. It almost feels like a fight you can't lose this kind of fight.

>>51041670
No, they don't, and if they were foolish enough to try and go to court over something so demonstrably prior art they'd get BTFO'd just like they did in the Chapterhouse Studios case.

>>51040884
Trademark. Which is different. They have trademarks on individual terms of the I.P. like Tyranids, Sanguinius, or Adeptus Astartes. This keeps other companies from using these specific terms associated with their games in their games. They have copyright over the rulebooks as a whole. Which mostly just does stuff like make the epubs and PDFs at the top of /40kg/ illegal. This would also prevent someone for posting large sections of the books without authorization.

Actually owning the "rules" would require a patent. However pretty much all the rules of 40k would currently be considered "abstract ideas" and thus ineligible for patent.

>>51040440
Looks like DiTerlizzi's art.

>>51040440
>>51040807

You cannot copyright rules, the people behind D&D tried and failed. It is the law, you are free to steal mechanics and rule-sets at will.

What they do copyright is the artwork inside the books and they also will attempt to copyright the lore/content of brewed up creatures.

>>51049898
That being said, I forgot to add, they openly stole their shit from already known folklore (like Disney) so they don't even have all that many protection in relation to depictions and artworks.

You may still get sued, copyright law is fucked. If you don't protect your copyright then it can be used against you in court, hence why fan games get attacked because another company can openly copy content and then point at the fan games while stating that the first company failed to protect the property and hence allowed it to fall into the public domain.

Stupid nigger shit

>>51042765
They will likely sue you on principle.

Also, their are two different types of methods for determining copyright infringement.

I highly recommend you look into both before doing anything stupid. One will likely lead to better days while the second will send you to jail. . . and the second is become more popular in courts.

>>51044118
Yeah, but copyright laws are a bit shit and if you let someone get away with shit, the next guy can go "well, they didn't sue those dudes, so why am I the bad guy here?" and lose control of their property or parts of it.

>>51049953
Then again, why do companies get to hold onto IP for eons. It was never the intention of the law and big business is just stretching it out as far as they can, because fuck you, we're still printing money with it. Imagine if all stories ever kept their copyright and nobody could use or borrow from them without paying royalties to relatives of authors centuries dead, or just some company that holds the rights, making some Jew a few billion a year.

>>51040440
Considering that their wargame systems are just a step up from atrocious it should not be a problem. By the time someone clears most of the problems system would be unrecognisable.

>>51043473
>Space Polynesians
fuck yes

>>51050002
Can you be less of a vague asshole and explain what the second is? Or at least fucking name it?

>>51050965
Isn't that the Space Shark's gimmick?

>>51046587
>However pretty much all the rules of 40k would currently be considered "abstract ideas" and thus ineligible for patent.
From what I remember about my IP classes, GW rules wouldn't be that abstract and probably eligible for patent if there wasn't a ruling specifically about rule systems, and if GW rules were in any way original.

>>51051538
Even if that were true, patents aren't automatically granted the way copyright is. They'd have to apply for a patent which they haven't done.

>>51044118
>BTFO'd just like they did in the Chapterhouse Studios case.
GW won several of their claims in that case, i wouldn't call it a BTFO.

>>51050002
>They will likely sue you on principle.
They never sued Mantic.

>>51051538
No, I work in patents so I know what I'm talking about. Under recent Supreme Court decisions and the interpretations of those by the USPTO, it would be virtually impossible to try to patent the rules of 40k.

This is moot regardless, since those rules have all long become public prior art and thus now prevent a patent on novelty and obviousness grounds as well.

>>51053548
>sued Mantic
For what? Mantic has never done anything directly derivative of the designs. Simply making Evil Dwarves, or even Evil Dwarf Centaurs with big hats, isn't enough. Chapterhouse just didn't give a fuck and used actual trademark names and direct designs from GW art and GW still was only successful on a third of their claims.

>>51042510
Why would you steal bad rules? Just make your own bad rules.